If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god.

There is not such thing as evidence of absence because absense doesn't exist.Default is no claim. For there nothing claim, to assert god with out proof, is as good as asserting nothing. There nothing to assert.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god.

There is not such thing as evidence of absence because absense doesn't exist.Default is no claim. For there nothing claim, to assert god with out proof, is as good as asserting nothing. There nothing to assert.

"absence doesn't exist". You do realize that you just said not-existing doesn't exist, right? If that is true, then everything exist. If you say there is no proof of god, then this is not proof that god doesn't exist, this is evidence his existence is unknown. Example. Fred said that he is smarter than Jill but didn't prove it, so it must be false. Just because we didn't prove Jill was smarter doesn't mean he isn't.We could reverse the God statement to "You can't prove God doesn't exist, do by default, he exist."Simply put, lack of proof is not proof. If you want to learn more, this is called appeal from ignorance argument and has shown numerous times why this reasoning is a type of fallacy.

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

Okey you want a reason.....

1) Logic2) You can't explain THAT !!!C) Ergo God

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

Okey you want a reason.....

1) Logic2) You can't explain THAT !!!C) Ergo God

@Illegalcombatant1)Logic=thought2)thought=mental images(when you think of logic, you form a mental image)3)mental images=matter with physical properties4)Ergo, proof of the universe, not God.

How can I prove this? The video shows how scientist are starting to be able to mindread. How can they mindread if thoughts aren't made of physical properties?

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god.

There is not such thing as evidence of absence because absense doesn't exist.Default is no claim. For there nothing claim, to assert god with out proof, is as good as asserting nothing. There nothing to assert.

"absence doesn't exist". You do realize that you just said not-existing doesn't exist, right?

The Fool: how are so way off of what I am saying? exactly is not a double negative as in -1*-1=1 its 0*0=0 absense is zero. and non-existence is zero. its not the same as a double negative.

If that is true, then everything exist. If you say there is no proof of god, then this is not proof that god doesn't exist, this is evidence his existence is unknown.

The Fool: everything does exist. its can't not if you can talk about it. The question is in what form. For example I have an Idea of god. But that only an idea in my mind. Whether there is god beyond is a whole other deal. I also have unicorn in the form of ideas in my mind. That is actually a proof against god is that, we are never able to account for supernatural other then ideas in our mind. Because you can't escape your mind.

Example. Fred said that he is smarter than Jill but didn't prove it, so it must be false. Just because we didn't prove Jill was smarter doesn't mean he isn't.

The Fool: Trust me I get it. The Bop is always positive. You can't proof what is not there because notness doesn't exist. 0*0=0 nothing follows after notness.

We could reverse the God statement to "You can't prove God doesn't exist, do by default, he exist."

Simply put, lack of proof is not proof.

The Fool: Lact is proof = not proof absence of proof= proof of absense. They are nonsense. Lol I am not a noob, 0 proof is the same as proof of 0 they amount to nothing. Its a fallacy that Bop needs to proof non-existence of god.

non-existence of god is that same just plan non-existence or non-existence of dragon. they all don't exist. it doesn't matter what type of non-existence because they all are not thier.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

Okey you want a reason.....

1) Logic2) You can't explain THAT !!!C) Ergo God

@Illegalcombatant1)Logic=thought2)thought=mental images(when you think of logic, you form a mental image)3)mental images=matter with physical properties4)Ergo, proof of the universe, not God.

How can I prove this? The video shows how scientist are starting to be able to mindread. How can they mindread if thoughts aren't made of physical properties?

He is making fun of you and you don't even know it. He is saying exactly what I was saying. logic doesnt equall where are getting such garbage. There is not mental image of logic.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

Okey you want a reason.....

1) Logic2) You can't explain THAT !!!C) Ergo God

@Illegalcombatant1)Logic=thought2)thought=mental images(when you think of logic, you form a mental image)3)mental images=matter with physical properties4)Ergo, proof of the universe, not God.

How can I prove this? The video shows how scientist are starting to be able to mindread. How can they mindread if thoughts aren't made of physical properties?

Doesn't matter, as long as something is unkown we can use God as the explanation.

Why is grass green ? can you explain that to me ? ergo God did it.

"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12

At 3/8/2012 11:23:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:You have been washed by theolgins pretending to be philosohpers.

"there is not mental image of logic"think about something to do with logic. You have just formed a mental image. mental images are just representations of what we have observed about our environment around us. And I'm pretty sure what he means by you can't explain logic is he thinks logic is an immaterial thing, that logic is on a spirtual plane that only God can account for. I may be wrong, but I don't see how....As for me being brainwashed by theologins, I'm an Atheist. I just try to understand theology a little better than other atheist."everything exist" Yes, maybe in our imagination, but not in the physical plane of existence. If he doesn't exist in the physical plane of existance, than he doesn't exist period. And if you claim that God doesn't exist without proof, then you are doing the same thing as Christians who claim God does exist because there isn't proof of his non-existence.

"Why is grass green ? can you explain that to me ? ergo God did it."Why is the grass green? because of chlorophyll. Why does Chlorophyll exist? Because it always has.Why does God exist? Because he always has.I can use your exact answers for my questions as well. At least we can observe chlorophyll which counts as proof. We can't even observe God....

At 3/8/2012 11:46:22 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:The funny thing is, I'm arguing both a atheist and a theist at the same time..... what irony.

who an athiest?

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 3/8/2012 11:23:55 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:You have been washed by theolgins pretending to be philosohpers.

"there is not mental image of logic"think about something to do with logic. You have just formed a mental image. mental images are just representations of what we have observed about our environment around us. And I'm pretty sure what he means by you can't explain logic is he thinks logic is an immaterial thing, that logic is on a spirtual plane that only God can account for. I may be wrong, but I don't see how....As for me being brainwashed by theologins, I'm an Atheist. I just try to understand theology a little better than other atheist."everything exist" Yes, maybe in our imagination, but not in the physical plane of existence. If he doesn't exist in the physical plane of existance, than he doesn't exist period. And if you claim that God doesn't exist without proof, then you are doing the same thing as Christians who claim God does exist because there isn't proof of his non-existence.

No you are not getting it. Everything does exist. For real. I didnt any thing about phyiscal plane.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 3/8/2012 11:46:22 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:The funny thing is, I'm arguing both a atheist and a theist at the same time..... what irony.

who an athiest?

So your status says agnostic, but your reasoning says atheist. True agnostic believe that lack of proof is not proof which is why they believe that you can't prove or disprove God. Yet you argue that lack of proof is indeed proof of absence(meaning that God doesn't exist because there is no proof of his existence). If you you do believe the last sentence, then you are atheist.

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Lets say I claimed that there was a large fire breathing dragon in my garage, and I brought you to check it out. Now imagine you look in the garage and all you see is a car, a ladder, paint, shelves ect. and empty space.

The absence of evidence of the dragon, would in fact, be evidence that the dragon is not present.

So I disagree with you, there are many cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Lets say I claimed that there was a large fire breathing dragon in my garage, and I brought you to check it out. Now imagine you look in the garage and all you see is a car, a ladder, paint, shelves ect. and empty space.

The absence of evidence of the dragon, would in fact, be evidence that the dragon is not present.

So I disagree with you, there are many cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The discussion is metaphysical, not empirical.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Lets say I claimed that there was a large fire breathing dragon in my garage, and I brought you to check it out. Now imagine you look in the garage and all you see is a car, a ladder, paint, shelves ect. and empty space.

The absence of evidence of the dragon, would in fact, be evidence that the dragon is not present.

So I disagree with you, there are many cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The discussion is metaphysical, not empirical.

Do excuse for my ignorance(I am only 17), but what are the differences?

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Laws of Logic are based on our capacity to understand reality in the manner that we do. To say that something is logical is to say that it abides by the necessary assumptions we make for us to understand our existence and what we perceive to be reality.

One cannot "disprove" God by showing that the concept is illogical. However, one cannot "prove" God using any argument based on logic either.

The decision you make as it pertains to religious belief, is whether or not you trust your perception of reality and the use of logic to act in your day-to-day life. If you choose, you can easily make room for faith. Most people do not, because they don't feel they need to.

: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Lets say I claimed that there was a large fire breathing dragon in my garage, and I brought you to check it out. Now imagine you look in the garage and all you see is a car, a ladder, paint, shelves ect. and empty space.

The absence of evidence of the dragon, would in fact, be evidence that the dragon is not present.

So I disagree with you, there are many cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The discussion is metaphysical, not empirical.

Do excuse for my ignorance(I am only 17), but what are the differences?

Empirical is a posteriori (checking) which is riddled with problems of induction when we discuss things philosophically, but is the norm in society because of the alternative being:

Metaphysics is a priori (pondering about it) which is a great philosophical tool and answers many questions but is quite... "airy". However, I feel that it has gave us more conclusions.

An example of metaphysics is one that I'll draw from Wittgenstein's beetle. When I gave a class I was teaching about it (Year 7s in English School), I split the class of 30 into half. Then I gave each side a box (quite narrow but deep). They could not touch what was inside it or take it out or talk about it. Then I told them to write down what they saw. Both groups wrote down "LEGO". I showed both groups the result. Then I asked the groups to say what is in the other person's box. They, of course, said LEGO. Then I asked "that's what is in your box. So you both have the same thing?" to which they responded yes.

I took the two items out. One was a few LEGO bricks, another was a photo of the LEGO bricks. I then asked "So you both have the same thing" again. They said "no". Then I started a discussion on public language. But the point is, empiricism is constrained by many things, such as language, and so metaphysics is incredibly important to 'proving' something.

For example, a dragon may be a picture of a dragon, or a blow-up dragon with a flamethrower. Is that likely? Even there, if the person worked for the 90s ACDC (when they had a fire breathing dragon on stage sometimes), then it may very well be true. Furthermore, we can say the dragon is intangible. Where you fall on this issue is usually quite divisive and based on intuition a lot more than not. Or, is there definitely not a fire-breathing dragon in the room? Or is it contingent? These are issues of metaphysics. You can just check for a dragon, sure, but how do you know it has not already left? What if it is hiding? These are some of the problems of empiricism: we can't know for certain.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

At 3/8/2012 3:53:37 PM, IFLYHIGH wrote:If the laws of logic must depend on something, for they can't be independent. The question is what are the dependent on? If God created the laws of logic, then that means the laws of logic are variant and can be changed by God as he sees fit. Example. God can make it rain and at the same time not make it rain. Also if they are variant, then we can't prove anything using logic since they are changeable. If you believe the laws of logic depend on God, what are your reasons?

The Fool: you need to prove god before you assert god. I don't know, doesn't mean "enter god here" if we had did that the whole time we would never get anywhere. Not all things are going to be answered, in your life time we learn over generations its just the way life works. That doesn't means be lazy and through in a supernatural explanation when you don't understand something. We are not supernatural so we don't know that any better. ITs a circular explanation.

I am not a theist but disagree with your first sentence. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence- it's evidence of the unknown.(argument from ignorance) As for the rest of your paragraph, I agree with you totally.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Lets say I claimed that there was a large fire breathing dragon in my garage, and I brought you to check it out. Now imagine you look in the garage and all you see is a car, a ladder, paint, shelves ect. and empty space.

The absence of evidence of the dragon, would in fact, be evidence that the dragon is not present.

So I disagree with you, there are many cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The discussion is metaphysical, not empirical.

Do excuse for my ignorance(I am only 17), but what are the differences?

Empirical is a posteriori (checking) which is riddled with problems of induction when we discuss things philosophically, but is the norm in society because of the alternative being:

Metaphysics is a priori (pondering about it) which is a great philosophical tool and answers many questions but is quite... "airy". However, I feel that it has gave us more conclusions.

An example of metaphysics is one that I'll draw from Wittgenstein's beetle. When I gave a class I was teaching about it (Year 7s in English School), I split the class of 30 into half. Then I gave each side a box (quite narrow but deep). They could not touch what was inside it or take it out or talk about it. Then I told them to write down what they saw. Both groups wrote down "LEGO". I showed both groups the result. Then I asked the groups to say what is in the other person's box. They, of course, said LEGO. Then I asked "that's what is in your box. So you both have the same thing?" to which they responded yes.

I took the two items out. One was a few LEGO bricks, another was a photo of the LEGO bricks. I then asked "So you both have the same thing" again. They said "no". Then I started a discussion on public language. But the point is, empiricism is constrained by many things, such as language, and so metaphysics is incredibly important to 'proving' something.

For example, a dragon may be a picture of a dragon, or a blow-up dragon with a flamethrower. Is that likely? Even there, if the person worked for the 90s ACDC (when they had a fire breathing dragon on stage sometimes), then it may very well be true. Furthermore, we can say the dragon is intangible. Where you fall on this issue is usually quite divisive and based on intuition a lot more than not. Or, is there definitely not a fire-breathing dragon in the room? Or is it contingent? These are issues of metaphysics. You can just check for a dragon, sure, but how do you know it has not already left? What if it is hiding? These are some of the problems of empiricism: we can't know for certain.

@Kleptin- I totally agree with you. I have even pondered on the computer simulation argument, wouldn't that be funny if all we were were AI's created by posthumans?@Stephen_Hawkns- I'm guessing the picture represents empiricism and the lego's represent metaphysics? Same with dragon, picture of dragon=empiricism and blown up dragon with flame thrower=metaphysics?

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL